Quote# 65079

[Not even Atheism is free from "fundies"...]

There quite allot of atheists who do everything in their power to shield religion from criticism. They don't subscribe to religion and don't believe in religion for very much the same reasons most atheist do, but they've got an added interest:

They're snobs.

In the land of the blind, one-eye is king. Unlike the 'millitant atheists' or the 'antitheists' They want the majority of this world remain blinded by religion so they can relish at the these inferior sheep. These are the people that try to halt the enlightenement, preferably rewind it by the banner of 'respect' so they can be the scarce 'special' people to hold the truth.

These folks even try to convince other atheists by stating that criticising religion is not the way forward. Trying to push everyone back in the shackles of respecting silence and shutting up about it so the non-believers can smoothly be assimilated into the religious society.

It's all about ego. The viewer free-thinkers, the less people that are like them and the more extra-ordinary they can pretend to be.

Tokamak, RichardDawkins.net forums 31 Comments [8/31/2009 5:44:25 PM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Educated Stupid

Username  (Login)
Comment  (Text formatting help) 

1 2 | bottom


If I could get rid of door to door religion salemen, I would.

8/31/2009 5:58:49 PM


While it's true that some atheists prefer to walk on eggs where religion is concerned, I don't think it's a Big Conspiracy to keep the number of non-believers low so that they can feel "special."

More likely, they have religious friends whom they'd alienate if they told them to their face that the only difference between their friends' religious beliefs and the delusions of madmen was the size of their support group.

8/31/2009 6:03:15 PM


"One-eye"? Huh, I didn't know true Scotsmen had only one eye. No wonder they're so hard to find.

8/31/2009 6:07:55 PM

Reverend Jeremiah

I guess you are talking about the old/new atheism. Quite frankly I must disagree with much of what you say.. I consider some of the old atheists to be more of an "uncle tom" than a snob..they are afraid to rock the boat and may even talk the Christ stuff in public with a positive tone..

Then again, there are some atheists who consider it a non-issue..why discuss the local mythology?

As far as this being fundie? I really dont know how to vote.. Tokamak was sure a bit over the top...

Perhaps this should go in conspiracy theorists.

8/31/2009 6:26:01 PM

Doubting Thomas

I personally think that we should criticize religion where it is appropriate. As an atheist, I'd rather see the world free from religion rather than feeling smug that I know "the truth." There's no joy in seeing progress held back because this or that scientific advancement goes against what someone's god wants.

8/31/2009 6:38:32 PM


I think this would be better on CSTDT, but still- an atheist conspiracy theorist. Quite the rarity.

8/31/2009 6:54:33 PM


.....Wtf? Is Tokamak 12? Because it sounds like they're also hanging out with a bunch of whiny kids who are atheists because baww life sucks in general.

8/31/2009 7:31:45 PM



I seriously don't even understand what this person is saying enough to make a comment on it. Even though I just did, I guess...

8/31/2009 7:37:08 PM

Caustic Gnostic

Finish your snack and juice, Tok, it's nap time.

8/31/2009 7:50:56 PM


I am the product of ancestors going back to the common ancestor who were fast enough, strong enough, cunning enough and smart enough to survive and reproduce.

Of course, I'm special-just like everyone else living in this century.

8/31/2009 8:03:33 PM


This is not fundie at all. I get the impression that lately FSTDT has been trying to make some kind of point about fundie-ism not being limited to Christianity, but it's resulted in some pretty silly entries into the archive. If someone on a forum sounds a little haughty, it doesn't make him a fundie! Can we go back to the way FSTDT used to be?

8/31/2009 8:17:48 PM


Kind of pretentious, but not really fundie.

8/31/2009 8:32:48 PM


What the fuck is this shit?

8/31/2009 8:49:34 PM


This is garbage, and they know it.

Christianity is the biggest power in the US. But they keep crying about how beaten down they are by those horrible atheists. Who often are forced to stay in the closet about their non-beliefs to their own families, or else they'll be disowned. Not too long ago, they could've been arrested under "blasphemy" laws in some states.

Now this person has some kind of problem with atheists who are quiet and tolerant and don't criticize them? Can't imagine why that is!

It's been suggested that Christians have their own ego-driven "special status": Being persecuted. Playing the part of the underdog. If atheists come off as being mature and tolerant, they'll gain sympathy, and Christians can't let that happen. Can't let the world see them as human beings, a minority with a valid point of view. So this guy's decided to smear their motives into something selfish and properly heathen-ish, so they can continue to be dismissed.

These accusations can go both ways, Tokamak.

8/31/2009 9:26:31 PM


Well I like Madalyn Murray O'Hair about as much as I like Ted Haggard, so yeah I'll take a moderate Christian over a militant anti-theist any day of the week. But the reason is that I'm a moderate, not because I want to feel superior.

8/31/2009 9:49:52 PM

You know, some of us have to have jobs and interact with society on a daily basis. I'd rather just do my job, pick up my groceries, and drop off my library books without being 'witnessed' to, getting into a theological argument, or dealing with the outright hostility that can occur when a religious person finds out you're an atheist. It's not about feeling holier-than-thou, it's about just fucking getting on with life.

8/31/2009 10:31:55 PM


This sound a lot like Richard Dawkins standpoints about people who are atheists but have no problem with other people's religious beliefs. It's not a subject I agree with, but at least Dawkins defended and explained his point in his books.
This guy clearly doesn't have a clue what he's babbling about, most likely just using it to sound smart and pretentious.

8/31/2009 10:37:20 PM


In the land of the blind, one-eye is king. Unlike the 'millitant atheists' or the 'antitheists' They want the majority of this world remain blinded by religion so they can relish at the these inferior sheep.

Um, no. In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is an outcast. And probably walks in constant fear of his life or of being blinded himself, if H G Wells was on to anything.

It's not healthy to think exclusively in terms of simplistic parables. Think realistically; would a one-eyed king of blind people not become profoundly frustrated incredibly quickly? Can you imagine what kind of hell it would be, to be the only rational scientist in a world of superstitious dunces? It's bad enough for us atheists as it is, and you think we want to make the current situation worse?

9/1/2009 3:17:16 AM


I suspect we should give a name to this fallacy. I prefer the "Black scotish cyclops".

9/1/2009 3:40:16 AM




9/1/2009 3:45:45 AM

David B.

I do not wish to have other people's beliefs forced upon me, nor have to constantly battle for the "right to believe" as I do. I want my beliefs tolerated and I want that tolerance to be inalienable. Not tolerated as in "immune from criticism", not tolerated as in "given special privileges", and not tolerated as in "allowed but deprecated". Tolerated as in "I have as much right to believe as I choose as someone else has to believe otherwise".

Kant's categorical imperative would imply that if I want this for myself I should want it to be universal if I am to be considered a rational, or moral, person. More simply, I'm not so hypocritical as to demand freedom of thought for myself while denying it to others. Let all the world be free to choose what to believe and if the majority pick imaginary friends and sky-daddies, I will (dolefully) accept that.

I might not like it, but that I don't like another's choices is no more relevant to them than that numberless people disapprove of mine is to me.

That's not "snobbish relishing" of someone's inferiority, it's the rational, reasonable view that other people are as capable of making their own minds up as I am. I may mock the fundies, but I don't deny their right to be that way.

9/1/2009 6:55:18 AM

Dr. Novakaine

It's about respect. I respect that other people have beliefs that will differ from mine. I may not respect those particular beliefs or agree with them in any way, but I respect the right of others to practice them to the degree that they don't hurt others in doing so. Atheists have to remember this respect, because if they don't they will find their own beliefs cast down even more than they are now.

9/1/2009 8:06:10 AM


What the last two posters said!

9/1/2009 8:43:24 AM

You got me, I just like being an atheist because it's cool to be in a minority. Thats why I don't tell everyone that religion sucks constantly. Or maybe I just don't feel like alienating people from me.

9/1/2009 8:55:46 AM

Pule Thamex

Surely being an atheist doesn't mean that you have to go out your way to criticize religion, it just means you don't believe in supernatural entities. You're not required to criticize anything in particular if you don't want to. However, personally, I do think religion stinks and is a major stultifying force in the world at large. It's yet another pastime or cultural idea that requires one to be a true-believer with the ability to hoodwink oneself or let oneself be easily deluded by others in order to allow control by an authoritative organization.

The fact that many people, maybe most people, are religious in a gentle way doesn't alter the fact that religions' acceptance is just the first small step on an increasingly pot-holed and rubble littered road to staring-eyed lunacy and fundamentalist mind-warp.

9/1/2009 9:52:38 AM

1 2 | top: comments page